Steven L. Maynard (2006)

admitted to practice in 1979, At all times mateIial to this proceeding, Mr, Maynatd operated I ' Mr. Maynatd is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire., Mr" Maynatd was

the record SUppOltS the following findings of fact by cleat' and convincing evidence: Professional Conduct Committee, upon consideration and review ofthe Stipulation, determined that The patties entered into a Stipulation of F acts and Rules Violated On October 17, 2006, the FACTUAL FINDINGS

as detailed below: Motions and Memoranda, the Professional Conduct Committee makes factual findings and rulings HaVL"'1g revievved the record, including th.e }~otice of Charges, A~svver, Complaint History,

Mr. Maynatd was also present Attorney Discipline Office,. David A Gatfunkel, Esquire, appeated on behalf of the Respondent Page and Toni M, Gray were absent Landya B, McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel, appeat'ed for the Hamel and James R, Mattin, Matgatet H. Nelson and Benette Pizzimenti were recused., David N, David N, Cole, Thomas P Connair, Gerald A Daley, RepOIter, Richard H. DaIling, Gretchen Rule above-referenced matter. Members present were Alan 1. Cronheim, Acting Chair, Ellen L Arnold, On October 17, 2006, the Professional Conduct Committee heard oral argument in the

Contingent on Compliance with Terms and Conditions of Stipulated Agreement

Alan J Cronheim Holly B Fazzino, Admin Coordinator Thomas P. Connair * non attorney member David N. Cole David N Page' Ellen L Arnold James R Martin Toni M. Gray,' Vice Chair 603-224-58280 Fax 228-9511 Gretchen Rule Hamel Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 0330 I Richard H. Darling' Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Park Street, Suite 304 Gerald A. Daley'

with medical releases, nor did he forward copies ofthese requests to Mi. Pierce. Maynard did not respond to any of these requests, other than providing one defense attorney discovery requests, including additional intelI'Ogatories and requests for medical records. Mr 10. Meanwhile, throughout the Fall, 2002, the defendants propounded nUIIIerous additional

Pierce's review or tender any discovery materials to defendants' counsel. 9.. Mi .. Maynard did not prepar·e final answers to the August 20, 2002, interrogatories for Mi· credibility of Mi .. Pierce's version of events. concerned about the strength ofMr.. Pierce's lawsuit and, more specifically, about the intenogatories and after reviewing the medical records, Mi Maynard states that he became 8. At some point in the late Fall, 2002, after receiving Mi .. Pierce's draft answers to the 7. During the Fall of2002, Mi .. Maynard reviewed Mi .. Pierce's relevant medical records. 2002, Mr. Pierce forwarded to Mi·. Maynard his hand-written answers to the interrogatories 6. Mi. Maynard forwarded the set ofinteuogatories to Mi. Pierce and, in or about September, Mr. Pierce by one or mOle of the defendants

5.. On or about August 20, 2002, Mr.. Maynard received a set of intenogatories propounded of 4.. On August 2,2002, Mr.. Maynard filed an Appearance in that case on behalf of Mr. Pierce. survived initial scrutiny and should be served on the defendants.. R. Muirhead's Report and Recommendation that Mr.. Pierce's claims of medical negligence 3.. In an Order dated August 1,2002, the federal district court granted Magistrate Judge James county jails. proceedings, Mr. Pierce was incarcerated at the New Hampshire State PIison or at one of the Superintendent, RCHC, et al. (docket #02-CV-164).. [Doc. #1] At all times relevant to these

Corrections ("RCHC").. The action was entitled James A. Pierce v. Gene Charron, medical malpractice against a nUIIIber of employees at the Rockingham County House of District Court for the District of New Hampshire ("federal distIict court") alleging, inter alia, 2. On April 8, 2002, James A Pierce filed a pro se civil rights complaint in the United States Hampshire, 03060-3408 .. his law office as Jordan, Maynard & Par'Odi, PLLC, 40 East Pearl Street, Nashua, New p. 3 Page 3 of12

hereinafter refened to collectively as the"motions to dismiss.") remaining defendants filed motions to dismiss on the same grounds. (These motions are

grounds that Mr·. Pierce had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.. Thereafter, the 17. On December 5, 2002, several defendants filed a motion to dismiss Mr·.. Pierce's lawsuit on Maynard's decision. during the Fall, 2002, meeting was heated, as Mr·. Pierce was not satisfied with Mr. 16. Mr·. Pierce did not agree with Mr.. Maynard's assessment oithe case. Their conversation court would have then fOTwarded pleadings and other mail directly to Mr.. Pierce .. Mr.. Pierce's appearance pro se would have been that the defendants and the federal district 15 One practical effect of Mr.. Maynard's withdrawal (if the court permitted withrhawal) and

basis until he could secure new counsel. Maynard to withrhaw from the case so that Mr.. Pierce could represent himself on a pro se 14. Mr.. Maynard did not explain to Mr. Pierce that one option available to him was for Mr.. to Mr Pierce, ffi-ke any actions either to harm or to help his case Pierce had secured a new lawyer.. In the meantime, Mr. Maynard would not, as he explained lawyer.. Mr.. Maynard explained that he would file a withrhawal from the case only after Mr.. 13. Mr.. Maynard states that he advised Mr.. Pierce during the Fall, 2002, meeting to seek a new administrative remedies at the RCHC before filing his lawsuit. respond to discovery requests or on the grounds that Mr·.. Pierce had failed to exhaust his Mr·. Maynard states that he explained that the case would likely be dismissed for failure to

assisted Mr.. Pierce in this manner, Mr.. Maynard would be committing a fraud on the Court. Pierce that he would not respond to defendants' discovery requests out of concern that, ifhe any further action in the case on Mr.. Pierce's behalf Mr.. Maynard states that he told Mr.. view of his assessment ofthe case and Mr.. Pierce's credibility, he was disinclined to take 12.. During the Fall, 2002, meeting, Mr·. Maynard states that he explained to Mr.. Pierce that, in Pierce's claim. This meeting is hereinafter refeued to as"the Fall, 2002, meeting." communicated his concerns about Mr.. Pierce's credibility and the overall weakness ofMr 11. At some point in the late Fall, 2002, Mr.. Maynard visited Mr. Pierce at the prison and p. 4 Page 4 ofl2

motions to dismiss. communication from his attorney about either the pending discovery deadlines or the required the reopening of his federal lawsuit as he had never received any notice or other June 30, 2003, after WIiting to the Clerk of the district COUlt. Mr.. Pierce argued that fairness reopen his federal lawsuit. Mr·. Pierce had learned of this entry of judgment sometime before

29.. On or about September 20,2003, Mr. Pierce filed in federal district COUlt a pro se request to his lawsuit, Mr. Maynard informed Mr. Pierce that his federal lawsuit had been dismissed.. 28 DUling the July 2, 2003, visit, in response to a question from Mr .. Pierce about the status of was at that time incarcerated at the Hillsborough County House of Corrections ("HCHOC"). 27.. On July 2, 2003, in response to a request from Mr. Pierce, Mr. Maynard visited Mr.. Pierce, who 2003, Mr .. Maynard did not communicate with Mr .. Pierce. 26.. From the time of their meeting at the prison in the late Fall, of2002 through early July of communicate with Mr .. Pierce about the judgment 25. Mr .. Maynard did not forward a copy ofthe May 15 judgment to Mr. Pierce or otherwise 24. Judgment in favor oithe defendants was entered on May 15,2003.

otherwise communicate with Mr· .. Pierce about the Orders .. 23. Mr. Maynard did not forward a copy ofJudge McAuliffe's May 14 Orders to Mr. Pierce or mootness grounds.. granting the motions to dismiss, Judge McAuliffe dismissed the motions to compel on Pierce's lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.. As a result of his Order 22. On May 14,2003, Honorable Steven L McAuliffe granted the motions to dismiss Mr .. motions to compel to Me Pierce or otherwise communicate with Mr .. Pierce about them. 21.. Mr .. Maynard did not respond to the motions to compel; nor did he forward copies of the

(These motions are hereinafter referred to collectively as the"motions to compel") 20. Similar defense motions to compel were filed on December 31, 2002, and April 15, 2003. compel and for sanctions as a result of Mr .. Pierce's failure to comply with discovery requests. 19.. On December 10, 2002, one of the defendants filed the first of a series of defense motions to motions to dismiss to Mr. Pierce or otherwise communicate with Mr. Pierce about them 18.. Mr.. Maynard did not respond to these motions to dismiss; nor did he forward copies of the p. 5 Page 5 of 12

committing a fraud on the COU1t. records) out of concem that, if he assisted Mr. Pierce in this manner, Mr. Maynrud would be Pierce's answers to interrogatories and other discovery (including Mr. Pierce's medical Pierce's version of events and was not comfortable forwruding to the defendants Mr

34. As ofthe date of the Fall, 2002, meeting, Mr. Maynrud states that he did not believe Mr.

convincing evidence ofa violation ofNE R. Prof. Conduct 14(a)-(c). 33.. Mr. Maynrud's failure of communication as described above constitutes cleru and infurmed decisions about his case. extent that such explanation was reasonably necessruy to permit Mr. Pierce to make also failed to explain to Mr. Pierce the legal and practical aspects of Mr. Pierce's case to the

Mr. Maynrud failed to keep Mr.. Pierce reasonably informed about the status of his case and his case; and he did not inform Mr Pierce that he could withdraw from the case In so doing, motions to dismiss; he did not timely commurricate with ML Pierce about the dismissal of timely communicate with Mr.. Pierce about the existence of vruious discovery requests and 32.. As explained in more detail above, Mr.. Maynrud failed to communicate in that he did not

that the record supports the following rulings oflaw by cleru and convincing evidence: the Professional Conduct Committee, upon consideration and review of the Stipulation, detennined The pruties had entered into a Stipulation of facts and rules violated. On October 17, 2006, RULINGS OF LAW

Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution. neglected to take any further action with respect thereto, and the First Circuit Court of 31. Mr Pierce filed a pro se notice of appeal of Judge McAulifle's October 7 Order but exhaust available remedies (and must do so) before pursuing his claims in this court." his prior dismissal of Mr. Pierce's case was"without prejudice. plaintiff remains free to 30 By Order dated October 7,2003, Judge McAuliffe denied Mr.. Pierce's request but noted that p. 6 Page 6 of12

suspension stayed for two years under a series of terms and conditions designed to closely monitor

The parties, in their Stipulation, agr·eed on a sanction which would include a six month SANCTION

providing for remediation. better serve both the public and the Respondent by recognizing the seriousness of the violations, yet stayed suspension with a tightly controlled system of monitOIing by a committed mentor could recUIling complaints, a straightfOIward suspension might be an appropriate sanction. Conversely, a and the fact that his actions resulted Lll no fraud~ deceit~ or personal gain. G'lven the Respondent's

warnings" Also to be considered, however, are the mitigating factors of the Respondent's remorse complaints to the Attorney Discipline Office, resulting in a reprimand, pubiic cenSUIes, and An aggravating factor in this case is the Respondent's histOIY, which includes several ANALYSIS

there is necessarily clear and convLTlcing evidence of a violation of Rule 8A(a). 38. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence of violation of the aforementioned Rules,

violation ofNE R Prof Conduct l.l6(a)(1}

37.. Mr. Maynard's conduct in this regard constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a Mr.. Maynard was required to withdraw from representation at that time. Mr. Pierce would result in a violation ofthe rules of professional conduct (i.e., Rule 3.4(d)), 36. Because at the time of the Fall, 2002, meeting Mr. Maynard's continued representation of Pierce's answers to interrogatOIies.. responded to legally proper defense requests for discovery, including requests for Mr.. administrative remedies As of that date, Mr.. Maynard was also aware that he had not yet likely be dismissed on that basis or on grounds of Mr.. Pierce's failme to exhaust

Mr.. Pierce that he would not take fiuther action on Mr.. Pierce's case and the case would 35.. FUIther, as of the date ofthe Fall, 2002, meeting, Mr Maynard states that he explained to p. 7 Page 7 of12

assume Mr Parodi's responsibilities 1 When Mr, Parodi is unavailable because of vacations, trial schedule or other professional or personal reasons, Alexander S Buchanan, Esq wjJI

monitoring of his practice of law, as described herein .. 1.. Mr. Maynard agr'ees to comply with the terms of this Stipulation, including the

stayed for two years contingent on compliance with the following stipulated terms and conditions: Committee concluded that the appropriate discipline in this matter is a six month suspension to be Maynard's law firm in agreeing to monitor and supervise Mr. Maynard's practice. Accordingly, the the parties. The Committee further took note of the level of interest and commitment shown by Mr. future conduct would be prevented by the terms and conditions of the creative sanction stipulated by

the Bar would be maintained, the integrity of the legal profession would be preserved, and similar this case The Committee also recognized that the public would be protected, public confidence in of rules by Mr .. Maynard were part of a pattern and that suspension was an appropriate sanction in Mr. Maynard's practice oflaw.. The Professional Conduct Committee recognized that the violations p. 8 Page 8 of12

(f) All incoming calls for Mr·. Maynard will be routed first to the That paralegal will report to and be supervised by Mr. Parodi. by a secretary/paralegal with personal injillY litigation expeIience. (e) Diarying and docketing for all personal inj illy cases will be performed review/discuss Mr.. Maynard's civil cases. (d) Mr.. Parodi will meet with Mr. Maynard on a weekly basis to been screened and accepted by Mr.. Parodi Maynard, however, may provide representation in civil cases that have rage'j or 1L

(Ie) The fum's engagement/fee letter for criminal cases will be modified to enSUIe that this procedUIe is being followed.. this policy and Mr Parodi will confer with her on a weekly basis to ML Maynard's clients Mr.. Maynard's secretaIy will be infOImed of and all pleadings filed by Mr.. Maynard will be copied and provided to court, all pleadings filed by opposing counsel, all discovery requests, (j) With respect to ML Maynard's cases, all orders received from the his cases, including the criminal cases..

arises out of events that predate adoption of this Stipulation by the Professional 4.. If the Attorney Discipline Office receives a complaint against Mr. Maynard that the N.H Rules of Professional Conduct either a material breach of the terms of the Stipulation or constitutes a violation of establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr .. Maynard's reported conduct is

proofthat Disciplinary Counsel must meet is as follows: Disciplinary Counsel must month suspension based upon information reported by Mr.. Parodi, the bmden of 3.. In any proceeding under paragraph 2 of this Stipulation to impose the stayed six suspension is wa.nanted proof by a preponderance of the evidence to estabiish that imposition of the stayed Committee's decision shall be fmal .. Disciplinary Counsel shall have the burden of (10) minutes to address the issue of imposition of the stayed suspension. The oral arguments will be conducted to allow Disciplinary Counsel and Mr. Maynard ten

imposition ofthe six month suspension should be granted or denied. Unless waived, for such hearing, the CO!l1_mittee shall determine whether the motion requesting argument. Following an evidentiary hearing (ifrequested), or the denial ofa request The Committee shall rule upon any request for an evidentiary hearing and for oral an evidentiary hearing thereon, and to request oral argument before the Committee shall have the right to respond in writing to Disciplinary Counsel's motion, to request requesting that the Committee impose the stayed six month suspension. Mr .. Maynard material violation, she may file a motion with the Professional Conduct Committee event. If Disciplinary Counsel concludes that, in her opinion, the reported event is a provide Disciplinary Counsel with any additional information regarding the reported

investigation, if any, that she deems appropriate. Mr. Maynard shall have the right to making that determination, Disciplinary Counsel may conduct such fiuther opinion, the reported event is a material violation of the terms of this Stipulation. In Disciplinary Counsel shall review that report and shall determine whether, in her 2. IfMr. Parodi reports issues or concerns in accordance with paragraph l(m),

8. If the law film of Jordan, Parodi and Maynard should dissolve, 01 if MI. Maynard 01 such lesser suspension is appropriate under the facts presented have the discretion to impose a suspension of less than six months if it finds that been pI oven in accordance with the applicable provisions of this Stipulation, it shall Conduct Committee finds that a basis for imposition ofthe stayed suspension has 7 In any proceeding to impose the six month stayed suspension, if the Professional disposition ofthat complaint complaint under paragraph 5 hereof must be initiated within 30 days of final stay. Any request for imposition of the stayed suspension that is based upon a complaints 01 motions are concluded after the expiration of the two year period of the imposition ofthe stayed six month suspension even if the proceedings on such motions are filed during the two year period, they can provide a basis for seeking pending pursuant to paragraphs 2 01 5 ofthis Stipulation If such complaints 01 shall be permanently stayed pIOvided that there are no complaints 01 motions 6. At the conclusion of the two year peliod described herein, the six month suspension Conduct Committee Maynard shall be entitled to an evidentiary hearing and review by the Professional month suspension in this case. If Disciplinary Counsel makes such a request, MI Disciplinary Counsel that the PIOfessional Conduct Committee impose the stayed six Conduct that may result from that complaint may provide a basis for a request by an expedited basis.. Any final adjudication of a violation of the Rules of Professional two year stay, that complaint will be processed by the Attorney Discipline Office on Stipulation by the Professional Conduct Committee and are within the period of me the period of the two year stay that arises out of events that post date adoption of this 5.. If the Attorney Discipline Office receives a complaint against Mr Maynard during suspension in this case.. result from that complaint will not be a basis for imposition ofthe six month business Any finding of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that may Conduct Committee, that complaint will be processed in the ordinary course of p. 12 Page 12 of 12

File Robelt Par·odi, Esquire David A. Garfunkel, Esquire c.. c. Landya B.. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel

J.4(d): Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, and Rule 84(a): Misconduct. This order shall take alld L3(b)(2): Diligence, Rule 14 (a)-(c): Corr'-'1mnication, Rule 1.16(a)(l): WithdIawal, Rule compliance with the stipulated agreement above, for violating N H. R. Prof. Conduct Rule 1.. 3( a) L. Maynard be suspended for six months, suspension to be stayed for two years contingent on F or all of the above reasons, the Professional Conduct Committee hereby orders that Steven CONCLUSION

investigation and prosecution of this matter. The Committee also accepts the Respondent's stipulated assent to pay costs incuned in the

30 days to ClUe. provisions ofthe Stipulation that are not acceptable and Me Maynard shall be given the new Stipulation is rejected by the Committee, the Committee shall specify those shall thereafter be presented to the Professional Conduct Committee for its review. If immediately. This Stipulation shall be renegotiated within 60 days of such event and Mr. Parodi should separate from the fl1m, Disciplinary Counsel shall be notified